Thread: Bad Atheist Responses to Christianity.

haha well i like hearing other people's beliefs in religion no matter what it is, my friend's religions vary in a wide range and i think it's interesting to just learn about them, i'm not the type of christian that thinks everyone is going to hell unless they believe in the same god as i do and persucute people who don't believe

I'm liking you more and more, Justin.

We could actually have respectable debates around here if we had more people like you.

lol i haven't seen any other christians on here i don't think or any other type of religion so far

Originally Posted by Needcatscan

It is He: The Fabled One. The one talked of in the prophecies of old to bring balance to Dreamviews R/S.

The open-minded Christian!

Duh duh duh!

I believe that I am also very open-minded

Belief doesn't constitute something as a fact.

I never said that

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Belief doesn't constitute something as a fact.

I can promise you, we will venture back to this statement in the near future.

Just remember you said this.

Okay...?

Instead of pseudo-threatening me, why don't you take a look at this?

Or this? No. Nevermind, not "or". Look at both.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Okay...?

Instead of pseudo-threatening me, why don't you take a look at this?

Or this? No. Nevermind, not "or". Look at both.

That wasn't a threat.

That was a prediction.

Find the last post where I was talking about me "believeing" something.

Please.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Find the last post where I was talking about me "believeing" something.

Please.

There isn't a last posts regarding that you've stated a belief in something. I said it's a prediction.

So your prediction is based on... Nothing.

No observations.
No studied occurances.

Doesn't surprise me one bit.

there are christians that believe in evolution

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

So your prediction is based on... Nothing.

No observations.
No studied occurances.

Doesn't surprise me one bit.

I said prediction. Please tell me you're joking? LOL.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

there are christians that believe in evolution

That depends on what kind of Evolution as there are probably at least 5 plus variations of Evolution . I believe in certain aspects of Evolution but I don't believe in Darwinian Evolution Theory.

Ne-Yo you have quite the limited capacity, don't you?

Lol at "Darwinian evolution theory".

IDiots never cease to amuse me with their ignorance...

Any chance you'll be visiting those threads?

Ne-yo I have always read bits and pieces of what you think happens when we die, but I have never actually figured out what you mean. I read once that you think everyone goes to hell or something close to that. So what do you think happens?

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

but still the statement i made was true, you can't prove or disprove god lol, that's all i'm saying!

And that literally was all you would say.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Your statement is true, but it is not relevant.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Ne-Yo you have quite the limited capacity, don't you?

Lol at "Darwinian evolution theory".

IDiots never cease to amuse me with their ignorance...

Any chance you'll be visiting those threads?

What's funny about Darwin's evolution theory?

I've already visited both threads.

Originally Posted by Flinte

Ne-yo I have always read bits and pieces of what you think happens when we die, but I have never actually figured out what you mean. I read once that you think everyone goes to hell or something close to that. So what do you think happens?

Where did you get that from? Sorry but you probably mixed me up with someone else because that clearly wasn't me, The scriptures doesn't support people going to Hell when they die. I don't believe in hell.

Well, you're so stupid because you apparently think that scientists don't accept new data and treat Darwin's theory like their bible or something.

I hate to break it to you, but science =/= religion. It isn't about proving something through twisting data, just collecting the data and going from there.

If you can't learn that then go back to your Fairy tales, whoe everything is true until it is proven false.

Not accepting evolution is ignorant enough but not bothering to come up with anything other than goddidit is just proof positive of the IDIot mind.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Well, you're so stupid because you apparently think that scientists don't accept new data and treat Darwin's theory like their bible or something.

Well the theory couldn't progress if scientist didn't accept new data right? Besides new data always brings one that much more closer to alterations.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

I hate to break it to you, but science =/= religion. It isn't about proving something through twisting data, just collecting the data and going from there.

So when the data is collected how do "YOU" know it's accurate information? How do you know that it's true beyond a shadow of a doubt, it's in no way questionable.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Not accepting Darwin's evolution theory is ignorant enough but not bothering to come up with anything other than goddidit is just proof positive of the IDIot mind.

Fixed.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

So when the data is collected how do "YOU" know it's accurate information? How do you know that it's true beyond a shadow of a doubt, it's in no way questionable.

Peer-review and third-party repetition of the experiments/observations conducted for the paper and evidence that is being presented. If people can't replicate your results or can't observe them, or if the data simply doesn't fit in with other data collected, then most likely the data is poor or forged.

Hey Justin, liked the topic post. It sort of lays everything out there, which is really nice. I consider myself an open-minded Christian as well and I'm often shocked to find myself in such arguments as the ones you described. It seems reasonable atheists and reasonable theists should be able to understand each other, but apparently there are certain point where we simply don't understand each other's way of thinking. I've had countless discussions with atheists who I respect and admire, but we always digress to a proverbial shouting match. It's unfortunate.

Thanks for taking a step to combat this. It's important for people to realize that there are level-headed thinkers on both sides of the fence.

I believe you misunderstand the first claim. There are many religions that believe in different Gods. There's Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Baha'i, Sikhism, Animism, Jainism, Hinduism, Shamanism, Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism, various pagan pantheons, etc, etc.

Now, even if you accept that these millions of Gods exist but are demons, it doesn't explain why we have to go with Christianity being the truth. A lot of these ideas are older, have better answers to certain questions, etc.

I believe what this argument proves is that there is not just two decisions. Not everyone who isn't an atheist is a Christian.

This argument is good for many things. It gets rid of Pascal's Wager: sure, if I believe in Christianity I don't go to Hell if the Christians are right, but its bad karma, Allah will be pissed at me, etc.

It gets rid of the argument that you can't disprove God, because you can't disprove any of these other religions. This makes Christianity a matter of faith. This is an emotional, subjective argument and there's no reason for an atheist to accept it.

It also deals with the argument that we should get to know God. Because there are many possible Gods, each as likely as the other. Why worship God when Ganesh is so awesome, and the Buddha is kind of cute?

---

I like your forth argument. But my views are not entirely scientific. I'm not a scientist, I'm a philosophy student and I don't know anything. But I try my best to find truth.

I can respect people who prefer to believe something because its comforting, but I'd feel like I was selling myself short if I did that. So a Bible that gives the "Absolute Truth" but says that some things are mysterious and doesn't explain any of the important questions doesn't seem right for me personally. Its too easy. It explains both too much and too little.

----

My answer to people telling me that an atheist has as much faith as a Christian is that biblically, faith is a virtue. I agree with this assessment. Faith is important and special.

I believe that faith is disvalued if you claim that everyone has the exact same amount of it. Its like if I said to a married man "of course I love as much as you do, you love your wife and I love nobody."

This argument does not always work, but I like it and believe its important.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Peer-review and third-party repetition of the experiments/observations conducted for the paper and evidence that is being presented. If people can't replicate your results or can't observe them, or if the data simply doesn't fit in with other data collected, then most likely the data is poor or forged.

Good. Now that brings me on to my next question. I can understand peer-review, however I like to know of at least one example of a third-party repetition, in this case would it be a group, organization or just a particular individual with credentials. Also has there been "ANY" instances where new data has arised and it's been peer-reviewed and processed throughly through a third-party repetition but has later been proven that the new data has been frabricated or inaccurate?